MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Characterizing the Craniofacial Morphological Changes in Neural Crest Cell Specific Conditional Connexin‐43 Knock‐Out Mice

2020· article· en· W3016729587 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elizabeth Jewlal, Jessica J Wu, Katherine E. Willmore

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicConnexins and lens biology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeural crestCranial neural crestBiologyNeural foldCell biologyConditional gene knockoutKnockout mouseCraniofacialConnexinCrestAnatomyNeural plateGap junctionGeneticsPhenotypeIntracellularEmbryoGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The craniofacial skeleton is an intricate structure that forms through complex cell‐cell interactions across neural crest and mesoderm derived cell populations. Proper cell‐cell communication during the migration and differentiation of cranial neural crest cells is critical for normal craniofacial development and this intercellular communication is thought to be facilitated through gap junctions – membrane channels composed of connexin proteins. In particular, connexin‐43 (Cx43) has been shown to be expressed in pre‐migratory and migratory cranial neural crest cells and plays a role in neural crest epithelial‐to‐mesenchyme transition. Additionally, within the skull, neural crest‐derived regions show the greatest morphological changes in mice wherein Cx43 has been globally ablated providing further evidence that Cx43 is important for proper neural crest function and ultimately proper development of the skull. To date, there have been no studies that have directly looked at the role of Cx43 in cranial neural crest cells in a mouse model. Thus, we have developed a neural crest‐specific Cx43 knockout mouse to address this gap in knowledge. In this study we (1) verify that Cx43 ablation is limited to neural crest cell and (2) characterize and compare craniofacial size and shape among wildtype, heterozygous and homozygous knockout mice. Heterozygous Wnt1‐Cre2 recombinase mice were bred with homozygous floxed Cx43 mice to create offspring which were bred to express the genotype, Wnt1‐Cre2 /+ :Cx43 fl/+ . These mice were bred to create: control mice (Wnt‐1Cre2 /+ :Cx43 +/+ ), heterozygous conditional knock‐outs (Wnt1‐Cre2 /+ :Cx43 fl/fl ) and homozygous conditional knock‐outs (Wnt1‐Cre2 +/+ :Cx43 fl/fl ). To verify the knockout, paraffin embedded sagittal sections of embryonic and post‐natal mouse hearts and skulls were tagged with Wnt1 and Cx43 antibodies. RT‐PCR, and Western blotting were performed on neural crest and mesoderm derived newborn skull bones, to verify the expression levels of Cx43 mRNA and protein respectively. Newborn skulls from each genotype were imaged using high resolution micro‐CT and these images were used to quantify and compare skull morphology among genotypes using statistical analyses of shape. We have confirmed that Cx43 ablation is limited to neural crest cells in our mice. Analyses of skull shape comparisons among genotypes is ongoing with our initial findings indicating that mice homozygous for the knockout demonstrate overt changes to skull morphology, heterozygous mouse skulls are qualitatively similar to control mouse skulls. We predict that statistical analyses will uncover that only the bones derived from neural crest cells will display morphological differences among genotypes. Our study addresses a fundamental gap of the role connexin‐43 plays in cranial neural crest function and subsequent development of much of the skull. Support or Funding Information Funding: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery Grant (R5211A02)

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicConnexins and lens biology→French-language works237,207→